Sen. Feingold's Bill to Censure Bush!

It's true what everyone says here, your articles lack meat. All they are is a title and your rush to agree with them. Where's the link? Where did you get this from for those who don't know about this yet? How's about a bit more detail on what exactly will the bill say or do? How are we to agree to something we don't know about cause you failed to explain what this Bill is or says? Can you please try a little harder and be less lazy when it comes to making articles? Please.

What is Bush being censured for?

Is it something I would agree requires censure?

What's Feingold's justification for proposing this bill? Have you read or heard his epxlanation? What did he say, that caused you to agree with him? What are you going to say, to convince the rest of us to agree with him?

Can you please try a little harder and be less lazy when it comes to making articles?

Dude. No one is forcing you to read these articles. If you don't like them, click elsewhere. People blog for themsevles. If you want more information, go research it. It is beyond arrogant to go to someone elses blog and berate them for the content of their posts.

If you don't like it, move on. There are plenty of other blogs that you can read.

Dude. No one is forcing you to read these articles. If you don't like them, click elsewhere. People blog for themsevles. If you want more information, go research it. It is beyond arrogant to go to someone elses blog and berate them for the content of their posts. If you don't like it, move on. There are plenty of other blogs that you can read.

Do you realize the stupidity coming out of your mouth? What do you think this site if for? To ignore what everyone writes? The point is to read them. I simply pointed out that AsWayOpens has the tendency of writing meatless article about interesting things and I would like to have a bit more info and more on what made him decide his choice so that a decent debate can be formed. Even if it's not easy to agree with Col, for example, at least he explains his articles, it's rare to see 1 or 2 lines from him on any topic.

Next time keep your nose out of what is not intended for you.

Do you realize the stupidity coming out of your mouth?

Wow. I can hardly believe that you'd have the gumption to call anyone else stupid. Absolutely astounding.

Have you ever read what you write? [I rest my case].

I'm not usually horribly mean or nasty on this site, but you seem to bring out the worst in me. Who died and made you king critic of Joeuser? AsWayOpens is not writing for your benefit, so if you don't like it, move on. You seem to think that you are mister perfect (I've seen you crap on plenty of blogs in your short time here), and that everyone here is to please you. That's just not the case, and since no one else was calling you on it, I decided to.

Next time keep your nose out of what is not intended for you.

I'm not a child or a dog, so you can refrain from reprimanding me.

But more importantly, that's rich coming from someone who has inserted themselves all over this site into situations that they CLEARLY should have stayed out of.

Asways, Like DJ said, try to get some meat in an article. Dont be a Lucas.

And Shades, your personal blog is yours. The forums are moderated and open to debate. DJ has a point.

DJ, dont mess with Shades. She will slice you and dice you and leave you for shark bait.

What if they gave a censure and nobody came ;~D

What if they gave a censure and nobody came ;~D

We would have Charles Rangel.

Thanks, Shades.

Sen. Feingold is getting a lot of online support, but not a lot of public support. It's just amazing to watch sometimes, isn't it? Many Senators questioning the legality of the wire tapping, but only wanting to change laws to support it, instead of acting on the fact the law was broken. The fact that they feel they need to change the law should prove it was broken to begin with.

Asways, Like DJ said, try to get some meat in an article. Dont be a Lucas.

Thank you DrGuy, that was all I was trying to point out. I never said anything bad to AsWayOpens except maybe being a bit lazy.

And Shades, your personal blog is yours. The forums are moderated and open to debate. DJ has a point.

That's what I thought so I kinda wonder what was her (? shade is a girl? Didn't know.) point.

DJ, dont mess with Shades. She will slice you and dice you and leave you for shark bait.

I'm not afraid. I've been around people worse. You should meet my dad, he would give this site a run for it's money with his mind. Too bad he's old and not into computers or internet. You guys would love to debate with him. I have no beef with shades and I hope this is just a separate incident that will not make us do battle every time we cross each other on an article.

I came to JU first and foremost because I'm a chatterbox. I love talking a lot and I love learning and I get plenty of that here. I enjoy reading other peoples opinions and giving my own. I'm an honest person when I open my mouth but that doesn't mean I always say something. I wanted more from this article in order to give my opinion, which is what AsWayOpens made the article for, and that's what I asked for. It is not the first time he does this but I always check his articles, apart from the title being interesting, to see if he finally changed his way of supplying information.

Shades, I'm not a mean person either, I rather have people as friends rather than enemies. I may seem harsh at times, but I'm either defending myself, or responding to Col, which in his case mean is the first thing out of my mouth cause he earned it and you can see that from most people who post in his articles. I'm just honest, am not here to sugar coat anything, what I say is what I believe regardless of who agrees with me.

Link

This will take you to the Bill.

Whatever you have to tell yourself, AsWays ;~D

And Shades, your personal blog is yours. The forums are moderated and open to debate. DJ has a point.

Dr. Guy. I've been around here as long as you (and longer). I'm fully aware of the rules. But I also recognize that it is unnecessary to pounce on someone else (something DJ has been doing of late, so I decided to voice my piece). Unless you've been made a moderator, you shouldn't feel the need to explain the way the site works to me.

I may seem harsh at times, but I'm either defending myself, or responding to Col, which in his case mean is the first thing out of my mouth cause he earned it

Really? Cause you were harsh here and you weren't being attacked, nor were you talking to Col (by the way, it didn't escape my notice that you hoped on that Col-hating bandwagon rather quickly).

hat's what I thought so I kinda wonder what was her (? shade is a girl? Didn't know.) point.

If you truly missed my point, you should brush up on your reading comprehension.

Really? Cause you were harsh here and you weren't being attacked,

Harsh? I simply asked questions for info the article was lacking. The only thing that could be considered an insult was the word lazy. I guess you have the right to your own opinion of what harsh really is. I could care less anyways.

nor were you talking to Col (by the way, it didn't escape my notice that you hoped on that Col-hating bandwagon rather quickly).

I may fight a lot with Col, but I don't hate him. Otherwise I would avoid his articles all together. I have agreed with him a few time, you can ask him yourself, but we defer in almost everything. He has the ability to get under peoples skin and, to me, it's just fun to try and get under his. You can see my replies any way you want, I have, so far, never addressed any of them to you so I could care less what you think of me or them. Col get's what he looks for, he wants to be repetitive when debating, he'll get the same treatment.

If you truly missed my point, you should brush up on your reading comprehension.

This coming from one who won't even admit the obvious of this article that a few have also pointed out and that the writer provided a link on a reply for it? Get a life, if this is what DrGuy was talking about when he said you would slice me and dice me, then you need to sharpen you knife. For crying out loud you are doing exactly what you are criticizing.

. No one is forcing you to read these articles.

It works both ways. No one is forcing you to read my replies. Learn to take your own advice.

I tried to be nice but your just in the mood to fight. Funny that stutefish did the same thing I did but I don't see you coming after him. Oh yea cause I said lazy. You are a bad boy DJBandit, shame on you.

Funny that stutefish did the same thing I did but I don't see you coming after him

Stutefish asked questions. You belittled the author. Yes, the term "lazy" was unnecessary.

Harsh? I simply asked questions for info the article was lacking.

Honestly, if you don't think that calling someone lazy because they don't attain your standards isn't harsh, then we aren't working off the same page.

This coming from one who won't even admit the obvious of this article that a few have also pointed out and that the writer provided a link on a reply for it? Get a life, if this is what DrGuy was talking about when he said you would slice me and dice me, then you need to sharpen you knife. For crying out loud you are doing exactly what you are criticizing.

"Get a life"--what a great debate method. Ooo--don't hurt my feelings. I'm afraid, my friend, that it is you that needs to sharpen a thing or two--as clearly demonstrated in that reply. I would respond to the first sentence, but it doesn't make sense. You are missing a word or two.

I could care less anyways

For someone who "could care less" you certainly wrote a lot on the subject matter.

No. Shadesofgrey evidently doesn't remember that people coming in and dumping blogs with a title, a snide comment, and a link has always been considered a problem. These articles don't even have links. People have to recognize that as the next election gets nearer you are going to see this more and more, often as a dedicated effort to flood the Internet with material to be found and associated by search engines.

I dunno if AsWayOpens just can't put any original thoughts together, or just doesn't want to. I think DJBandit was being nice, actually, to make the latter assumption instead of the former. I'm not sure I would have been so generous.

As for shades, well, policing comments isn't any more righteous than policing articles. Whatever passes the time for you.

---

As for Feingold's bill it's an impotent little nothing that he can't even get support for from Democrats. Rushing through condemnation before items have been resolved is patently transparent. He's actually hurt Democrats, honestly, since people can point out that most of them opted not to officially condemn the President's behavior.

Given that this "wiretapping" has been misrepresented from the beginning, to the point that most people can't even discuss the issue without spouting lies makes it an even worse effort. He wants to smear to stick before people realize it isn't all that much of a smear.

He's going to run for President, and he's adding little flaccid acts to the bullet point lists he'll put on the brochures. Heck, Hillary might even ask him to be VP and make the millions he'll waste a little less heinous.

As for shades, well, policing comments isn't any more righteous than policing articles. Whatever passes the time for you.

Point well taken, Bakerstreet. And to be fair, had the comment come from you, I'd have ignored it. DJ Bandit gets under my skin--I should have just walked away. Which is what I will do now.

No worries. Like I say, whatever passes the time. I've been a lot more picky about a lot less.

#16 by BakerStreet Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Thanks for the further clarification baker.

Given that this "wiretapping" has been misrepresented from the beginning

Yeah, right. That's why there are so many Republicans who frown on the administration's arrogance in skirting the law. Feingold is trying to be moderate in calling for censure rather than impeachment. Too bad you can't even accept a slap on the wrist of Bush. Of course, I agree that the Democrats have no guts for it either.

Given that this "wiretapping" has been misrepresented from the beginning

Yeah, right. That's why there are so many Republicans who frown on the administration's arrogance in skirting the law. Feingold is trying to be moderate in calling for censure rather than impeachment. Too bad you can't even accept a slap on the wrist of Bush. Of course, I agree that the Democrats have no guts for it either.

"That's why there are so many Republicans who frown on the administration's arrogance in skirting the law."

No, Republicans have frowned on it because the polls tell them that in order to do well in this year's election they need to frown on it. And if you think the statement "wiretapping Americans" isn't a stretch of the truth, you've lost sight of the real reality.

I find it odd that people would skip criminal proceedings and go straight for censure and impeachment. Could it be they want to slide past whether or not this is really illegal? We can't have people taking advantage of loopholes we don't mind leaving until we can condemn their use for political effect.

Sen. Feingold is getting a lot of online support, but not a lot of public support.

That's because he puts himself so far out on a limb that no one can safely follow.

Wow. I can hardly believe that you'd have the gumption to call anyone else stupid. Absolutely astounding. Have you ever read what you write? [I rest my case]. I'm not usually horribly mean or nasty on this site, but you seem to bring out the worst in me. Who died and made you king critic of Joeuser? AsWayOpens is not writing for your benefit, so if you don't like it, move on. You seem to think that you are mister perfect (I've seen you crap on plenty of blogs in your short time here), and that everyone here is to please you. That's just not the case, and since no one else was calling you on it, I decided

Sorry shades but this time you are incorrect. When you blog you "invite" public opinion of what you write. And allowing someone to voice their opinion is what a blog is all about. If "aswaysopen" does not like what DJBandit's opinion is, she has a couple of choices. She can a) not write anything or b)lock it down and not allow any comment or c) blacklist DJBandit. Her choice not yours. And just for the record???? He's right!

I'm not a child or a dog, so you can refrain from reprimanding me.

And for what it's worth....you should learn to take your own advice.

Thanks, Shades. Sen. Feingold is getting a lot of online support, but not a lot of public support. It's just amazing to watch sometimes, isn't it? Many Senators questioning the legality of the wire tapping, but only wanting to change laws to support it, instead of acting on the fact the law was broken. The fact that they feel they need to change the law should prove it was broken to begin with.

You seem to be missing a very valid point here. "No one" and I do mean no one has come forth and shown that what GW did was illegal.